Arguments Against National Security

Good Essays
National security and the protection of a state’s citizens is a primary duty for a government. The protection of human rights is also a great responsibility and central to having a modern democracy. A government though must sometimes restrict the human rights of some of its citizens in order to protect the state and its people. The judiciary has a role in deciding when to intervene in the restriction of the human rights of the citizenry when it feels the government has gone too far. In this essay I would argue that the judiciary should not use defence on matters of national security restricting the citizenry’s human rights and should fulfil its role as an independent check on the government in charge of safeguarding human rights.
In the case
…show more content…
They were given this responsibility by Parliament and it is an important role they must fulfil. The judiciary tend to use deference on national security matters because they are not experts on the issue. However, deference might not be the correct decision in all cases because most cases are on matters of procedure, rather than expertise; in those cases the courts should not refuse to decide the cases on the basis that they are security decisions and outside their expertise . The fact the government and Parliament are best placed to assess risk for national security can be questioned since they were wrong on the fact that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction after the invasion . Their decision making can always be questioned by the fact that Mr. Jean Charles de Menezes was shot in the head on the assumption that he was a suicide bomber when he was not . The government can overreact in certain situation or just get information wrong. Judges can be an important body of oversight. Judges are well placed to make decisions on national security and terror issues because as Feldman notes “public bodies understandably tend to overestimate risk, and to overreact to it. There is a tendency to focus on the seriousness of the consequences in the event of the risk coming to pass, rather than on the likelihood of its coming to pass. A small likelihood of …show more content…
The issue with letting Parliament decide on these matters is that Parliament is under pressure from the majority, which can lead to enacting draconian measures against who they fear is the enemy, which is usually a minority with little protection . The courts are removed from this pressure and can question the need for new polices that Parliament may introduce which can infringe on human rights . The legitimacy of the judiciary comes from that fact that it has to have rational arguments, its decisions must come from a legal authority and the judiciary is independent from politics ensuring an unbiased opinion . This gives legitimacy to judicial decisions against unjust laws passed by the government. This is an important when human rights are being considered because with issues of national security can often lead to improper treatment of minorities and foreign nationals. The judiciary is best not to defer to Parliament on matters of national security as Lucia Zedner explains that with “judicial protestations of deference to ‘ministerial responsibility’, in practice it is the executive that makes most controversial decisions regarding security. Whatever deference judges owe ministers can hardly be said to extend to civil servants .” Since neither the judges nor civil servants are elected to office, judges

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    I oppose this concept because it simply goes against what I seem to believe is the most important idea that must be carried out in all forms of the government which is separation of powers. I support a support a system within the government that allows only for each branch to review and be responsible for their own decisions. The Constitution does allow for one branch to check up on the actions of another, however to allow the judges to simply have the full perspective not only for themselves but for all the other branches as well, I fear will lead to a judicial despotism that will be damaging to us…

    • 1713 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This means that Parliament should not pass legislation that would result in the unequal treatment of particular groups or individuals. If Parliament does pass any such laws, the judiciary has the power to declare them unlawful if the law is taken to judicial review, as it almost certainly would be if the law were genuinely violating the rule of…

    • 1144 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    So if a monarch, or other authority infringes upon any of these rights they have cast away their own entitlement to said rights. It is in these instances, where a ruling body decides without input from the persons mentioned; that Locke believes war is justified. However, Locke does not believe that war is something that should be practiced often, and he also believes that there are other ways to ensure the rights of each individual. This is the true reasoning behind society and governments, and by extension the definitive guideline to how a ruling body should be formed. Not by chance, power, or subjection but by the people that are to be governed, because these governments’ sole purpose is to protect each citizen’s natural rights.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Supreme Court System

    • 726 Words
    • 3 Pages

    They also believe that unelected judges should not strike down on laws/policies that were created by an elected legislature. Politicians who oppose judicial activism also believe that courts should only be resolving internal conflicts within the branches and should only use judicial restraint when determining if a law is unconstitutional. (Jones 2016) However, these arguments against judicial activism are iniquitous. The function of the courts is to promote a democracy and ensure that the rights of citizens are not violated. If a law that a legislature has created violates a citizen’s individual liberty, judiciaries should be able to dismantle this…

    • 726 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The founding fathers of the United States feared the development of an oppressive government. To counter this, the founding fathers developed a system of checks and balances that directly includes the people. The right to a jury trial has a central role in the American justice system that prevents unlawful acts from being continued. Thus, juries have a political significance outside the judicial branch. The jury system acts as a check on government power preventing government officials from making laws that are morally wrong.…

    • 871 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    His manual The Prince is a crucial set of principles that "it [is] morally and tactically wrong to apply to political action the moral standars appropriate to private life and personal relations" ( Nikitin, par. 8). What Machiavelli teaches us is the importance that politics are a separate matter and should not be tied with religious undertones or our personal values. Above all, Machiavelli emphasizes that, " the question is not whether one human being should have the right to make such terrifying determinations" but it is "the essence of power, even in a democracy, is to use violence to protect the republic" (Ignatieff, par.9). Thus, where there are "good arms, there must be good laws" (Zuckert, 495).…

    • 1140 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    By using someone's liberty or freedom it shows that people are willing to argue on something that may or may not take away that right from them. Critics of the Patriot Act believe it is unconstitutional because it gives the NSA the ability to look through people’s information without permission or reasoning. However, the advocates of the Patriot Act state how it is constitutional because it does give the NSA ability to look at people’s information, but they don’t listen to phone calls or do any unlawful acts like how critics may believe. Whether or not the Patriot is legal or not, it’s not an easy answer to keep the Patriot Act. At what point is searching through people’s information enough?…

    • 806 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The issue of judicial restraint vs. judicial activism is that judicial activism* is generally refers to judges who allow their personal and political views to affect their interpretation of the law, and, consequently, their decisions in important cases. Judicial activists are often accused of ignoring stare decision when making their decisions. (American Psychological Assoc.) For Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. Judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some…

    • 978 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    They viewed it as an attempt to keep them out of politics and from voting, because they could not criticize the Federalists in any way (Hewitt and Lawson 231). They thought that the Federalists had too much power and were too elite, but their free speech was taken away and they could not do much about it. In the Virginia Resolution, a response the Sedition Act, James Madison talked about how the power the government was exercising was not only not granted by the constitution, but was also “expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto” (James Madison 283). Essentially, the government went against their own constitution that allowed freedom of speech by making it things illegal. They also opposed the Sedition Act because it demonstrated “the political welfare swallowed up in a continual grasp for power” (Matthew Lyon 283).…

    • 1033 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Every person has a moral obligation between separating what the state says and what they believe. The battle between the state and the individual can cause some controversy such as the topic of censorship. Some wonder if it is right that the government or a big company can obstruct books, news, movies,etc. An abundance of power should not be given to one person, but instead to the people with a voice. The opinions and beliefs of an individual should not be obstructed or it can be detrimental to the society.…

    • 1176 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays